Buddhist Writings.
The Harvard Classics. 1909–14.
There Is No Ego
1. Translated from the Milindapañha (251)
gasena was; and having drawn near he greeted the venerable Ngasena; and having passed the compliments of friendship and civility, he sat down respectfully at one side. And the venerable Ngasena returned the greeting; by which, verily, he won the heart of king Milinda.
And Milinda the king spoke to the venerable Ngasena as follows:—
“How is your reverence called? Bhante, what is your name?”
“Your majesty, I am called Ngasena; my fellow-priests, your majesty, address me as Ngasena: but whether parents give one the name Ngasena, or Srasena, or Virasena, or Sihasena, it is, nevertheless, your majesty, but a way of counting, a term, an appellation, a convenient designation, a mere name, this Ngasena; for there is no Ego here to be found.”
Then said Milinda the king,—
“Listen to me, my lords, ye five hundred Yonakas, and ye eighty thousand priests! Ngasena here says thus: ‘There is no Ego here to be found.’ Is it possible, pray, for me to assent to what he says?”
And Milinda the king spoke to the venerable Ngasena as follows:—
“Bhante Ngasena, if there is no Ego to be found, who is it then furnishes you priests with the priestly requisites,—robes, food, bedding, and medicine, the reliance of the sick? who is it makes use of the same? who is it keeps the precepts? who is it applies himself to meditation? who is it realizes the Paths, the Fruits, and Nirvana? who is it destroys life? who is it takes what is not given him? who is it commits immorality? who is it tells lies? who is it drinks intoxicating liquor? who is it commits the five crimes that constitute gasena, neither is he a murderer who kills a priest, nor can you priests, bhante Ngasena, have any teacher, preceptor, or ordination. When you say, ‘My fellow-priests, your majesty, address me as Ngasena,’ what then is this Ngasena? Pray, bhante, is the hair of the head Ngasena?”
“Nay, verily, your majesty.”
“Is the hair of the body Ngasena?”
“Nay, verily, your majesty.”
“Are nails … teeth … skin … flesh … sinews … bones … marrow of the bones … kidneys … heart … liver … pleura … spleen … lungs … intestines … mesentery … stomach … faeces … bile … phlegm … pus … blood … sweat … fan … tears … lymph … saliva … snot … synovial fluid … urine … brain of the head Ngasena?”
“Nay, verily, your majesty.”
“Is now, bhante, form Ngasena?”
“Nay, verily, your majesty.”
“Is sensation Ngasena?”
“Nay, verily, your majesty.”
“Is perception Ngasena?”
“Nay, verily, your majesty.”
“Are the predispositions Ngasena?”
“Nay, verily, your majesty.”
“Is consciousness Ngasena?”
“Nay, verily, your majesty.”
“Are, then, bhante, form, sensation, perception, the predispositions, and consciousness unitedly Ngasena?”
“Is it, then, bhante, something besides form, sensation, perception, the predispositions, and consciousness, which is Ngasena?”
“Nay, verily, your majesty.”
“Bhante, although I question you very closely, I fail to discover any Ngasena. Verily, now bhante, Ngasena is a mere empty sound. What Ngasena is there here? Bhante, you speak a falsehood, a lie: there is no Ngasena.”
Then the venerable Ngasena spoke to Milinda the king as follows:—
“Your majesty, you are a delicate prince, an exceedingly delicate prince; and if, your majesty, you walk in the middle of the day on hot sandy ground, and you tread on rough grit, gravel, and sand, your feet become sore, your body tired, the mind is oppressed, and the body-consciousness suffers. Pray, did you come afoot, or riding?”
“Bhante, I do not go afoot: I came in a chariot.”
“Your majesty, if you came in a chariot, declare to me the chariot. Pray, your majesty, is the pole the chariot?”
“Nay, verily, bhante.”
“Is the axle the chariot?”
“Nay, verily, bhante.”
“Are the wheels the chariot?”
“Nay, verily, bhante.”
“Is the chariot-body the chariot?”
“Nay, verily, bhante.”
“Is the banner-staff the chariot?”
“Nay, verily, bhante.”
“Is the yoke the chariot?”
“Nay, verily, bhante.”
“Are the reins the chariot?”
“Nay, verily, bhante.”
“Is the goading-stick the chariot?”
“Nay, verily, bhante.”
“Pray, your majesty, are pole, axle, wheels, chariot-body, bannerstaff, yoke, reins, and goad unitedly the chariot?”
“Nay, verily, bhante.”
“Nay, verily, bhante.”
“Your majesty, although I question you very closely, I fail to discover any chariot. Verily now, your majesty, the word chariot is a mere empty sound. What chariot is there here? Your majesty, you speak a falsehood, a lie: there is no chariot. Your majesty, you are the chief king in all the continent of India; of whom are you afraid that you speak a lie? Listen to me, my lords, ye five hundred Yonakas, and ye eighty thousand priests! Milinda the king here says thus: ‘I came in a chariot;’ and being requested, ‘Your majesty, if you came in a chariot, declare to me the chariot,’ he fails to produce any chariot. Is it possible, pray, for me to assent to what he says?”
When he had thus spoken, the five hundred Yonakas applauded the venerable Ngasena and spoke to Milinda the king as follows:—
“Now, your majesty, answer, if you can.”
Then Milinda the king spoke to the venerable Ngasena as follows:—
“Bhante Ngasena, I speak no lie: the word ‘chariot’ is but a way of counting, term appellation, convenient designation, and name for pole, axle, wheels, chariot-body, and banner-staff.
“Thoroughly well, your majesty, do you understand a chariot. In exactly the same way, your majesty, in respect of me, Ngasena is but a way of counting, term, appellation, convenient designation, mere name for the hair of my head, hair of my body … brain of the head, form, sensation, perception, the predispositions, and consciousness. But in the absolute sense there is no Ego here to be found. And the priestess Vajir, your majesty, said as follows in the presence of The Beloved One:—
“It is wonderful, bhante Ngasena! It is marvellous, bhante Ngasena! Brilliant and prompt is the wit of your replies. If The gasena! Brilliant and prompt is the wit of your replies.”
Just as the word “chariot” is but a mode of expression for axle, wheels, chariot-body, pole, and other constituent members, placed in a certain relation to each other, but when we come to examine the members one by one, we discover that in the absoulte sense there is no chariot; and just as the word “house” is but a mode of expression for wood and other constituents of a house, surrounding space in a certain relation, but in the absoulte sense there is no house; and just as the word “fist” is but a mode of expression for the fingers, the thumb, etc., in a certain relation; and the word “lute” for the body of the lute, strings, etc.; “army” for elephants, horses, etc; “city” for fortifications, houses, gates, etc.; “tree” for trunk, branches, foliage, etc., in a certain relation, but when we come to examine the parts one by one, we discover that in the absolute sense there is no tree; in exactly the same way the words “living entity” and “Ego,” are but a mode of expression for the presence of the five attachment groups, but when we come to examine the elements of being one by one, we discover that in the absolute sense there is no living entity there to form a basis for such figments as “I am,” or “I”; in other words, that in the absolute sense there is only name and form. The insight of him who perceives this is called knowledge of the truth.
He, however, who abandons this knowledge of the truth and believes in a living entity must assume either that this living entity will perish or that it will not perish. If he assume that it will not perish, he falls into the heresy of the persistence of existences; or if he assume that it will perish, he falls into that of the annihilation of existences. And why do I say so? Because, just as sour cream has milk as its antecedent, so nothing here exists but what has its own antecedents. To say, “The living entity persists,” is to fall short of the truth; to say, “It is annihilated,” is to outrun the truth. Therefore has The Blessed One said:—
“There are two heresies, O priests, which possess both gods and men, by which some fall short of the truth, and some outrun the truth; but the intelligent know the truth.
“O priests, gods and men delight in existence, take pleasure in existence, rejoice in existence, so that when the Doctrine for the cessation of existence is preached to them, their minds do not leap toward it, are not favorably disposed toward it, do not rest in it, do not adopt it.
“Thus, O priests, do some fall short of the truth.”
“And how, O priests, do some outrun the truth?
“Some are distressed at, ashamed of, and loathe existence, and welcome the thought of non-existence, saying, ‘See here! When they say that on the dissolution of the body this Ego is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death, that is good, that is excellent, that is as it should be.’
“Thus, O priests, do some outrun the truth.
“And how, O priests, do the intelligent know the truth?
“We may have, O priests, a priest who knows things as they really are, and knowing things as they really are, he is on the road to aversion for things, to absence of passion for them, and to cessation from them.
“Thus, O priests, do the intelligent know the truth.”
-Nidna-Sutta (25621) of the Digha-Nikya“In regard to the Ego, Ananda, what are the views held concerning it?
“In regard to the Ego, Ananda, either one holds the view that sensation is the Ego, saying, ‘Sensation is my Ego;’
“Or, in regard to the Ego, Ananda, one holds the view, ‘Verily, sensation is not my Ego; my Ego has no sensation;’
“Or, in regard to the Ego, Ananda, one holds the view, ‘Verily, neither is sensation my Ego, nor does my Ego have no sensation. My Ego has sensation; my Ego possesses the faculty of sensation.’
“In the above case, Ananda, where it is said, ‘Sensation is my Ego,’ reply should be made as follows: ‘Brother, there are three sensations: the pleasant sensation, the unpleasant sensation, and the indifferent sensation. Which of these three sensations do you hold to be the Ego?’
“Now pleasant sensations, Ananda, are transitory, are due to causes, originate by dependence, and are subject to decay, disappearance, effacement, and cessation; and unpleasant sensations, Ananda, are transitory, are due to causes, originate by dependence, and are subject to decay, disappearance, effacement, and cessation; and indifferent sensations, Ananda, are transitory, are due to causes, originate by dependence, and are subject to decay, disappearance, effacement, and cessation. While this person is experiencing a pleasant sensation, he thinks, ‘This
“In the above case, Ananda, where it is said, ‘Verily, neither is sensation my Ego, nor does my Ego have no sensation. My Ego has sensation; my Ego possesses the faculty of sensation,’ reply should be made as follows: ‘Suppose, brother, that utterly and completely, and without remainder, all sensation were to cease—if there were nowhere any sensation, pray, would there be anything, after the cessation of sensation, of which it could be said, “This am I”?’”
“Nay, verily, Reverend Sir.”
“Accordingly, Ananda, it is not possible to hold the view, ‘Verily, neither is sensation my Ego, nor does my Ego have no sensation. My Ego has sensation; my Ego possesses the faculty of sensation.’
“From the time, Ananda, a priest no longer holds the view that sensation is the Ego, no longer holds the view that the Ego has no sensation, no longer holds the view that the Ego has sensation, possesses the faculty of sensation, he ceases to attach himself to anything in the world, and being free from attachment, he is never agitated, and being never agitated, he attains to Nirvana in his own person; and he knows that rebirth is exhausted, that he has lived the holy life, that he has done what it behooved him to do, and that he is no more for this world.
“Now it is impossible, Ananda, that to a mind so freed a priest should attribute the heresy that the saint exists after death, or that the saint does not exist after death, or that the saint both exists and does not exist after death, or that the saint neither exists nor does not exist after death.
“And why do I say so?
“Because, Ananda, after a priest has been freed by a thorough comprehension of affirmation and affirmation’s range, of predication and predication’s range, of declaration and declaration’s range, of knowledge and knowledge’s field of action, of rebirth and what rebirth affects, it is impossible for him to attribute such a heretical lack of knowledge and perception to a priest similarly freed.”